Science Braces for Second Term

Share

Science Braces for Second Term

The Bush administration and the scientific community have never had an easy relationship.

For the past four years, scientists have accused the Bush White House of ignoring widely accepted scientific studies in favor of fringe theories that support the administration's political agenda. Meanwhile, government officials say scientists are exploiting research for political purposes.

Never was this rift more clear than at an American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in September, when former House Science Committee chairman Bob Walker, speaking on behalf of the Bush re-election campaign, warned scientists that their moaning about the government's treatment of science could lead to a "push back" from the federal government.

The scientific community has made a strong case. The Union of Concerned Scientists distributed two damning reports in 2004 accusing the administration of suppressing and manipulating research and stacking independent scientific advisory panels with ideological or industry-connected members.

"This administration has had a very uneasy relationship with science and scientists because of allegations that the administration has contorted science to fit political aspirations," said Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that focuses on genetic research and policy. "And part of it is an absence of genuine enthusiasm about science by the administration."

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, who declined to be interviewed, has dismissed the Union of Concerned Scientists' efforts as politically motivated. But Marburger's position itself is evidence of the administration's lack of enthusiasm for science, scientists say. Traditionally the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the president directly, but Marburger reports to Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff. Because of his position in the White House's organization chart, many question his influence.

For many scientists, the only hope to escape this perceived hostility was to throw out President Bush and replace him with his Democratic rival John Kerry in the November election. But now they're bracing themselves for a protracted war.

"I would place a Las Vegas bookie bet on the administration providing more fodder for more complaints" among scientists, said R. Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Law and Medical Schools.

Though dozens of issues are at stake, four that rise to the top are stem-cell research, global climate change, renewable-energy research and science education. Here's a look at where these fields may be headed in the next four years.

Stem-Cell Research

Perhaps the highest-profile rift between scientists and President Bush has been over embryonic stem-cell research. How the next four years will pan out for federal funding of this controversial science will likely center on how the administration reacts to California's Proposition 71, which mandates that the state spend $300 million a year for the next 10 years to fund stem-cell research.

Because of Proposition 71, other states will now feel pressure to throw money at stem-cell research to keep their best researchers. That's because star scientists – many of whom are planning to move to California – bring grant money to their schools and research centers. Wisconsin is poised to announce its response shortly.

Well-funded university research is also an engine for economic growth. Biotech companies, including Advanced Cell Technology, already have plans to build facilities in California, hoping for partnerships in the coming years.

"If scientists leave to go to California, the administration may get a phone call from a Republican governor saying, 'Hey, what are you doing to me?'" said Ross Frommer, deputy vice president for government and community and associate dean at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

With other states rushing to match California, conservatives may push to tighten research regulation and even renew a push to pass a federal law to ban some aspects of the research. In addition, the federal government would no longer have an incentive to fund the research, since California's program would lavish 12 times more funds on it than the federal government spent in 2003.

But given everything, it's unlikely Bush will change his resolve. Said Irv Weissman, a stem-cell researcher at Stanford University, "(Bush is) not a person who's given to flip-flopping."

Global Climate Change

Many scientists expect the White House to continue to disregard mounting evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change. And the administration is expected to continue to weaken regulations on polluting industries.

New evidence has scientists convinced that global warming is being felt now and is connected to the emission of greenhouse gases. A recent four-year study shows that temperature increases have already affected ice levels in the Arctic. The end of this century could see a 7- to 13-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures for the region, a loss of half of the Arctic's ice and rising sea levels of up to three feet.

"We don't have a decade to waste before we take action to cut greenhouse emissions," said Alden Meyer, director of policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "That's the challenge to this administration, because they have no plans to do anything."

In a 2001 speech after the United States rejected the Kyoto treaty, Bush admitted that the Earth's temperature was rising due to greenhouse gases, but said the United States would not make policy changes until more reviews were performed. The Kyoto treaty, Bush argued, would hurt the economy. "No one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided," he said.

There is little indication that Bush's administration will change its policy toward global warming. But pressure to reconsider might start coming from allies. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to make global warming an issue when he heads the European Union starting July 1. "(Blair) has said this is a major problem for the world and that he was certainly going to bring it up for discussion," said Sherwood Rowland, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists who hopes international pressure will result in U.S. policy change.

States also are taking matters into their own hands. California will require a 25 percent cut in car emissions within the decade, and New England states want a reduction to 1990 emission levels by 2010.

Renewable-Energy Research

President Bush has stated that his administration's goal is to make the United States "much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." But if the next four years are anything like the past four, his administration will continue to trim government involvement in renewable-energy projects while strongly encouraging research that favor the fossil-fuel industry.

The evidence is no clearer than in the administration's budget requests. For instance, its original request for fiscal 2002 (announced in May 2001) called for federal renewable-energy funding to be cut by 36 percent. Specifically, funding for solar, geothermal, hydropower and wind-energy research each would have been cut by 50 percent or more.

Though the request was eventually set aside by Congress during the appropriations process, it marked the first battle in an ongoing war between renewable-energy proponents and the Bush administration. So far, advocates for renewable energy are losing.

Another example: Federal funding for solar-energy research in 2004 was down 10 percent compared with 2001. And the administration's 2005 budget request proposes to cut the program an additional 3.5 percent. Biomass-energy programs, which have seen a less than 1 percent increase since 2001, would be cut by 16 percent under the proposed plan.

To be fair, the money has not disappeared completely. Rather, it is has been redirected to fund President Bush's hydrogen initiative. Unveiled during the President's 2003 State of the Union address, the initiative is a multiyear $1.2 billion plan to accelerate development of vehicles that run on clean-burning hydrogen fuel.

But the plan, as it stands today, directs a large portion of its funding to developing technologies that create hydrogen from nuclear reactors and fossil fuels – both of which have environmental drawbacks and, in the case of fossil fuels, would not lower America's dependence on foreign oil.

"It really seemed to us that there was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul," said Carol Werner, executive director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. "It's one thing for hydrogen research to continue, but ... the hydrogen stuff is really a longer ways off. In the meantime, there are so many things that can make a difference now."

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Energy said no officials were available to comment on its renewable-energy policy due to scheduling conflicts. But outgoing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has defended budget cuts in the past by arguing that the private sector should bear a greater share of the cost of renewable-energy research in areas where technologies have had time to mature.

Under that argument, however, the administration would also be cutting back on federal funding for fossil-fuel development. So far, that has not happened. Indeed, fossil-fuel research has actually received a boost under the Bush administration – from $438 million in 2001 to $672 million in 2004.

"At a minimum, I have a hope that funding for efficiency and renewables will stay the same and not decline any further," said Nancy Hirsch, policy director for the Northwest Energy Coalition. "But I haven't seen any indications that the administration is going to change its current direction."

Science Education

Science educators are bracing for another four years of fighting against anti-evolution crusaders who want to teach alternate theories of the origin of life, confusing students.

While President Bush doesn't set science standards for schools himself – most of this work is done by state and local officials – his re-election could affect science curriculum in two ways: by energizing his conservative Christian base to push for changes and by appointing federal judges sympathetic to creationist groups.

"There's an atmosphere of victory out there among religious conservatives, and I think they will be more inspired to go to the local school boards and press their case," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

The battle over evolution is not new. But the creationist strategy has shifted over the past few years from emphasizing religion to explain the origin of life to pushing to classify evolution as a "controversial" theory. One alternative they suggest is intelligent design, a theory that uses science-speak to argue that some objects are too complex to be explained by science alone; therefore, there has to be an intelligent designer behind them (read: God).

The theory may have a better chance of swaying school boards and courts, critics worry, because it does not blatantly use the Bible to make its point. The Supreme Court already tackled that issue in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, when the court struck down a Louisiana law mandating equal time for evolution and creationism.

"All they're doing is insinuating that evolution is too shaky to believe in," said Jack Krebs, a high-school teacher and board member of Kansas Citizens for Science, which is gearing up for another battle as its science standards are revisited in 2005. "It's a very insidious form of argumentation."

Intelligent design is already making its way into school districts in pockets of the country. Ohio's science standards say students should learn about evidence for and against evolution. In October, the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to add intelligent design to its biology curriculum. A school district in Grantsburg, Wisconsin, decided that teaching evolution should be balanced with other theories of origin, repackaging creationism in language acceptable to the courts. A trial in Cobb County, Georgia, is currently weighing the legality of adding disclaimers to science textbooks that say evolution is a "theory, not a fact."

"This is language that (intelligent-design proponents) think is going to work," Krebs said. "And we're seeing that in state after state."